All About That Ruby Chocolate Just Invented By Callebaut

On September 5th at a private event in Shanghai, giant chocolate manufacturer Barry Callebaut presented what got gloriously appointed as “the 4th type of chocolate“.

Chocolate experts from all over the world flew to China to assist to the revolution. It actually sounded like a big deal: after 80 years from the invention of white chocolate, the R&D department of the company managed to develop another kind of chocolate.

Next to dark, milk and white, there is now a pink chocolate called Ruby.

The news traveled the Internet fast. Dozens of article started popping out with the images of a eye-catching pink chocolate never seen before. Some of them were probably sponsored and paid for, some others just followed the trend. Nonetheless, in less than 24 hours every chocoholic online knew about Ruby chocolate.

As time went on, the media seemed more confused than ever. Since Barry Callebaut didn’t reveal any info on the actual process behind the pink chocolate, all there was to rely on were mostly enthusiastic marketing claims, and a lot of guessing. From a “new type of cocoa bean” to an “extracted pink powder”, nobody could really wrap his mind around how this Ruby chocolate was actually made.

But when passionate chocoholics online started digging deeper into the situation, the curtain of mystery fell to reveal some unpleasant truths.

The Ruby chocolate launched by Barry Callebaut.

Let’s start with color, texture and flavor.

Ruby chocolate was given this name because of its distinctive pink color. The Switzerland-based company cares to clarify that no flavorings or colors were added to the chocolate to make it look this way. This is an all-natural hue.

Regarding the texture, Ruby chocolate is smooth and creamy. Something in between milk and white, even though no ratio between cacao solids and cacao butter was disclosed by the company.

As for its flavor, Callebaut itself describes it as “not bitter, milky or sweet, but a tension between berry fruitiness and luscious smoothness”. In other words, Ruby should have the taste of chocolate with freshness and fruitiness to it. However, those who have personally tried it at the event in Shanghai, like Clay Gordon from The Chocolate Life, says that “it has little to none of the characteristic cocoa flavor associated with chocolate”.

More than the fourth flavor of chocolate, Ruby sounds like a pink cocoa butter with hint of fruitiness. But where do these peculiar color, texture and flavor come from?

They come from the Ruby cocoa beans, apparently.

These were at first erroneously described by the media as a new type of cocoa bean, almost like a new variety that nobody had ever encountered before, and Callebaut discovered. But now we know that “Ruby cocoa bean” does not refer to a new kind of cacao. It simply refers to cocoa beans who are USED to create Ruby chocolate.

These are cocoa beans that supposedly present the physical characteristics suitable to make Ruby chocolate (like I would call “Sharon oranges” the oranges I use to make my homemade jam, but they are really just simple oranges or a specific kind of oranges I use because they are perfect to make my jam, but I didn’t “discover” or “invent” them, and I am definitely not the only one using them). We can just assume that some cocoa beans are adequate to make Ruby chocolate, and others are not. Or even further, Ruby cocoa beans are just the processed cocoa beans dedicated to the manufacturing of Ruby chocolate. The company hasn’t been clear on the reasons why also the cocoa beans are called Ruby.

What we know is that these beans are sourced in Ivory Coast, Ecuador and Brazil. Sourcing from both West Africa and Latin America, Ruby cacao beans are not single origin and probably not associated in any way to terroir. The company also says that they come from the “same species of cacao plant used to make the chocolate we already know” , and swears that nothing was genetically modified. Therefore, not even genetics explains the peculiarity of these beans.

If Ruby cacao beans are just regular beans, how does the chocolate turn pink instead of its usual brown color? If it’s not in the genetics and in the terroir, the peculiarity must be in the post-harvesting processes.

Here is where passionate chocoholics online started their own research.

Ruby chocolate is presented by Barry Callebaut in Shanghai, China.

Hiding behind the Trade Secret, Barry Callebaut hasn’t revealed any detail on specific processes or ingredients used, leaving space for unlikely speculations regarding secret powders and intriguing compounds. Since the use of added ingredients has been denied, the most plausible explanation must lie in the way the cacao beans are treated after harvesting.

The experienced John Nanci from Chocolate Alchemy believes that “the color comes from processing” and “the processing might preserve a color that otherwise would darken”. At this point, it didn’t take long for curious chocolate makers and consumers to figure out the solution to the dilemma. This new pink chocolate must have something to do with the process to make red cacao patented by the same Barry Callebaut in 2009 (with some new modifications to reach the color pink).

A quick research on Google will lead to the specific patent (HERE). There we find the (most likely) solution served on a golden plate: unfermented cacao beans, acidified.

The explanation of unfermented cacao beans makes sense, on many levels.

First, unfermented cacao beans (raw) have the same pinkish color that we can associate to Ruby chocolate. Once fermented, cacao beans lose this cute color for a more brownish/chocolatey one. Therefore, skipping the fermentation process avoids the pink color to darken.

Secondly, a missed fermentation explains the lack of any chocolatey flavor in Ruby chocolate. Fermentation is the essential step for cacao beans to develop the precursors of the typical flavor of chocolate. By skipping that process, the cocoa beans don’t have time to develop the characteristic cocoa flavor. This would explain why Ruby chocolate doesn’t really taste like chocolate.

For the chemicals/non-chemicals used to acidify the unfermented cacao beans, it’s better to leave a deeper analysis to competent experts. However, we can assume that the unfermented cacao beans are treated to preserve their pink color after harvesting and during the bean-to-bar process. More info inside the patent on Google.

At this point, the Ruby cocoa beans are simply beans that are suited to look pink and taste fruity after the processes intended by Callebaut.

No wonder that this discovery further outraged chocolate professionals online, especially the ones dedicated to craft bean-to-bar practices and devoted to fine flavor. Here are the accusations.

Why do fine chocolate professionals hate Ruby chocolate?

Chocolate professionals in the fine chocolate industry accuse Ruby chocolate of these 3 main things:

being a marketing gimmick.

Barry Calleabaut has openly talked about the fact that Ruby chocolate is meant to target Millennials. In the Instagram age where online users go crazy about colorful food, the company is optimistic that Ruby chocolate will create a big buzz among foodies who like to share pictures of their meals. The color of Ruby chocolate perfectly meets the need of Millennials for fancy food to share online. This might be a clever marketing strategy, but definitely leaves the door open for critiques. The company can be accused of caring more about the visual side of the chocolate than its actual flavor, making it perfect for pictures and not so much for palates.

being a cost-cutting strategy.

It’s known that unfermented cocoa beans are way cheaper than fermented cocoa beans. The fermenting process takes up anywhere from 5 to 7 days to complete. This means more labour, more infrastructures and more time than just collecting wet cacao on the field and deliver it (or directly drying it). By using unfermented cacao, Barry Callebaut dramatically reduces the cost of its raw material. Moreover, since the flavor of Ruby chocolate is so subtle (and at this point not particularly relevant), the company can afford to be careless about the quality of the cacao beans used, reflecting in lower prices paid at origin.

doing nothing to promote fine chocolate.

Without putting any emphasis on flavor or quality, Ruby chocolate is considered a questionable product born to catch the eye, create buzz and nothing more. It doesn’t contribute to the elevation of chocolate as a fine food, nor stimulates consumers to look over its aesthetics. Rumors have it that the cacao used is the controversial CCN-51, known to be the worst enemy of fine flavor chocolate. Also, the fact that the company doesn’t reveal any detail about how Ruby chocolate is processed leaves many speculations about possible GMO and questionable practices.

Barry Callebaut doesn’t sell to end consumers, but only to other businesses. Ruby chocolate will therefore be available only in the shape of coverture for chocolatiers, pastry chefs and other professionals. Because it’s a brand new product, the company says it will be 6 to 18 months before it becomes available on the market. The Ruby cacao beans will not be available for purchasing. The date of release of Ruby chocolate will depend on the country and the vendor, and China will be the most targeted market.

(A special THANK YOU to all the people online who directly or indirectly contributed to this article, with links to the Callebaut patent, articles on Ruby chocolate and other useful information!)

What do YOU think of Ruby chocolate?

I did NOT get paid and did NOT receive any kind of favor for writing this article. These are my honest opinions at your service.

Exceptional article, Sharon! I loved the ‘Sharon Oranges’ part! And also the cost-cutting bit; which actually increases costs for the farmers in the countries of origin.
Thank you for being our chocolate mythbuster at large. And another thing, Barry Callebaut and his cronies may believe that they are hooking ‘millennials’ but those so-called, are more intelligent than they than think. They’ll grow to resent companies and figures like Callebaut for reducing them to a cat pouncing on a laser light. It’ll sell in the beginning though..

I have to say, this is a wonderfully thought out and analytical article that captures what I and many others were thinking. At first I was really excited and jumped at contacting Callebaut for more info. Sooner or later I began to smell a rat though… why the secrecy? Why has nobody else found these unique beans (spread over a number of countries)? Something didn’t add up. Your article captures why very well. Well done.

About the CCN51 rumors, I think its more than just rumors. BC states it uses beans from Ecuador and Brasil; Ecuador has mostly Nacional (non pure) and CCN51, Brasil also has CCN51, and other varieties but not Nacional. Making and intersection excersice is not dificult here.
There is another thing: They also say the cacao used should have high polyphenol levels to work.
Guess what cacao has very high polyphenol levels? Yes CCN51 as it has been used before for different “healty” “high polyphenol” chocolate.

There are some interesting replies and theories presented here. For me the most striking comment comes from the Bloomberg article that states…”The beans used to make ruby chocolate come from Ivory Coast, Ecuador and Brazil and the unusual color comes from the powder extracted during processing.” I would place emphasis on the “unusual color comes from the powder extracted during processing.” My 27 years in chocolate prior to retirement involved looking at extraction of the polyphenolic components of cocoa. Not surprisingly, the resultant extract is a beautiful ruby red! I never looked at color variations of bean types or fermentation levels as the emphasis was exploring for a different purpose that color. However, fermentation levels and bean origin are obvious components. I would expect this product to have minimal ( if any) chocolate flavor impact. The flavor components are probably a result of the extracted Ecuadorian fruity notes supplemented with select Ivory Coast. Not sure about the Brazilian ?
Bottom line to any of this is that it is a stretch to call this chocolate. I am sure that it does not fit into US Standards Of Identity…except maybe as a white chocolate. You would think that Callebaut would have a patent pending on this product. Worth a hunt>

To be honest, when I first read about this, my reaction was “you mean 5th type of chocolate, not 4th”. By the way they define “type of chocolate”, they neglect to include blonde, because they didn’t come up with the concept.
Can’t believe nobody else has raised this.
I’m skeptical because it doesn’t sound like they’ve done anything particularly amazing here except make a pink, fruity white chocolate.
Who knows what they’re aiming to do, but I’m kind of “meh”.

How to make purple Cocoa mass is simple , and this process is used to get the total benefits in Ecuador many years ago the CCN51 is perfect , so just they added a little portion to the recipie (Ruby) because if they try to make darker o more purple the astringency and bitterness increase . CALLEBAUT is right they just use cacao solids.

Vicente, I think you are spot on. The red/purple polyphenols are bitter and astringent, cocoa butter is white and mild. Mix the two, much more cocoa butter and some red/purple polyphenols, and you get a commercially popular pink with mild taste. More fat, less cocoa solids, i.e. a gimmick imo. I eat chocolate mainly for the cocoa solids, not the fat. Fat is contained in so many desserts, as well as white chocolate, cocoa solids in an appreciable quantity only in real, brown chocolate.

In any case, we will at some point know all the details and see if this is tasty or a gimmick. But if you can name white chocolate a chocolate, then this is chocolate too.

To follow up on Gary’s comment… if I did my homework, would I find that certain strains of cacao have sufficient quantities of phenol red, so that when processed in an alkaline environment the pigment turns the cocoa butter pink? If so, treating the cacao in an acidic environment should turn the cocoa butter yellow (but might change the flavor in a different or less pleasing way).

Sharon –
As one of only about 30 invited guests at the event, I have to respectfully say that you know little of what you’re talking about … not “all about.” The “unpleasant ‘truths'” you talk about are based on surmise and conjecture by people who were not there.

And none of you has tasted it. From personal experience I can tell you that the response is overwhelmingly positive, among people who have actually tasted it.

As I wrote over on TheChocolateLife (there are some misunderstandings I will discuss in an update in the next day or so), and in a Candy Industry guest blog that was published yesterday, it helps – at least I think it does – on a broader historical context for Ruby. Yes, the craft chocolate community is hating on Ruby, but that’s not unexpected, as Ruby goes against just about everything they hold near and dear. But craft chocolate is only a very small part of a $100 billion dollar market and focusing on Ruby ONLY from that perspective is only a very small part of a much larger story.

Did BC make some mistakes about how they describe Ruby – especially the beans? Yes. Are Ruby beans GMO. No. Are any of the conjectures about CCN51 on the mark? **Who cares?** If BC is using CCN51 I could not taste it … the characteristic flavor that everyone complains about is not in Ruby – which does not proclaim to be made from cacao fino in the first place. From the perspective of the farmer, if Ruby does use CCN51 – that’s a good thing. A BRAND NEW MARKET for them to sell a bulk bean into. The small maker community complaining about using CCN51 makes zero sense at all. Except as a way to stoke fear.

In talking with intellectual property professionals, it makes sense, in 2017, to have an approach that encompasses patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secret. That’s the nature of the world we live in now. Barry Callebaut is a publicly traded company and they need to consider their shareholders’ interests.

This is diametrically opposed to the openness of most small makers. But it’s important to keep in mind that the business interests and drivers are very different. White chocolate is forecast to reach US$17.5 billion in sales in 2017. It’s an important part of the overall market and when it was introduced it created an entirely new revenue stream for chocolate makers, candy makers, confectioners, pastry chefs, and more.

Does this mean I think that Ruby is great chocolate? That’s not my point here. The point is that it’s not craft chocolate and to judge it solely from that perspective is to ignore a whole lot of other aspects of Ruby.

Dark chocolate (actually, legally no such thing if we’re going to nitpick category definitions – call it what it is, sweet chocolate) tastes the most chocolatey. Milk chocolate less so. White chocolate not at all most of the time.

So why is there any expectation for a Ruby chocolate to taste like dark or milk chocolate? To me, that’s part of the point of Ruby. It’s not dark or milk or white. And, just as there are different judging categories and judging criteria for dark, milk, and white chocolates in competitions, Ruby should not be judged solely by those criteria – but by ones pertaining to Ruby chocolates.

Ultimately, Ruby may end up as a more versatile product in the sense that variations that nominally conform to sweet/dark, milk, and white could be created using the process. A 72% “dark Ruby” is just as easy to imagine as a 55% “milk Ruby.”

Does this mean that I have abandoned interest in craft chocolate? Absolutely not. But, as a commentator I have the luxury – and privilege –
of thinking about things in larger contexts. I don’t have to look at Ruby through the lens of craft chocolate. So I am not.

Well, Clay, of course it’s not necessary – and maybe not even entirely fair – to judge ruby chocolate solely from the point of craft chocolate, but it’s legit. Your standpoint is legit too, but in no way a needed correction to the author’s opinion.

And don’t forget, you were a GUEST and marketing target at that meeting. You have no way of knowing if the beans are GMO or not. Please don’t be so naive to believe everything they told you.

Very interesting read, but I thought I’d give it a go anyway and just ordered some of the Ruby KitKat’s https://ruby.nestle.jp/made-in-japan-kitkat-set-a.html so fingers crossed they taste good. Yes there is a good chance this is a gimmick but I have a few chocolate lovers I know who refuse to eat white chocolate because it’s not “real” chocolate… so I guess everyone has their own views on what is chocolate. I look forward to sharing how it tastes soon.

Pink is beautiful, chocolate is for fun and indulgence. Good marketing is vital to survive in such a competitive world and should not be automatically associated to cheating. Traditional chocolate is wonderful, but we cannot wait to taste Ruby! A more positive and ‘open’ approach would be encouraging for companies dedicating financial efforts towards research and developement…the experts, by definition, are biggest enemies of any innovation. Love Ruby, thank you Barry Callebaut.

i’ve not seen anything here on whether or not these beans are to be harvested ethically/sustainably…? If I cannot be reasonably certain the production of a product does not involve child slave labor, I won’t purchase or eat it…it’s a horrible practice that most of the largest chocolate companies utilize…

Ive tried this chocolate in its KitKat form and really was not impressed at all. I’d even go so far as to say it was un-pleasurable. There’s a review on my hobby blog but in short – unbalanced, devoid of anything exciting and joyous, and leaves a horrendous aftertaste. I think I agree with you and others re the beans. If this is being made available mass market (with KitKat for 80p!), its not a fine cocoa at all…. and you can tell.

Thank you for the informative (as always!) article, Sharon, and in particular for the link to the Patent Application. The entire process is set out there, for anyone to read. Interesting is the section where they say that any variety of bean from anywhere in the world can be used. It appears that Ruby is made from unfermented and unroasted beans. Wouldn’t you think that cutting out two significant processes should lower the price?
That said, I will be getting some when it first comes out, because customers will probably be clamouring for it.